special benefit rule in California

2022Section 920 is entitled ‘Benefit to Plaintiff Resulting From Defendant’s Tort,’ and provides in its entirety as follows: ‘When the defendant’s tortious conduct has caused harm to the plaintiff or to his property and in so doing has conferred a special benefit to the interest of the plaintiff that was harmed, the value of the benefit conferred is considered in mitigation of damages, to the extent that this is equitable.’ ” (Metaxas, supra, 65 Cal.App.5th at p. 89.) We also cited to and quoted from cases involving the special benefit doctrine, as follows: 23 “Maben v. Rankin [(1961)] 55 Cal.2d [

2022Section 920 is entitled ‘Benefit to Plaintiff Resulting From Defendant’s Tort,’ and provides in its entirety as follows: ‘When the defendant’s tortious conduct has caused harm to the plaintiff or to his property and in so doing has conferred a special benefit to the interest of the plaintiff that was harmed, the value of the benefit conferred is considered in mitigation of damages, to the extent that this is equitable.’ ” (Metaxas, supra, 65 Cal.App.5th at p. 89.) We also cited to and quoted from cases involving the special benefit doctrine, as follows: 23 “Maben v. Rankin [(1961)] 55 Cal.2d [

2021(Maben v. Rankin (1961) 55 Cal.2d 139, 144 [‘In determining the damages suffered as a result of a tortious act, consideration may be given, where equitable, to the value of any special benefit conferred by that act to the interest which was harmed’]; Rest.2d, Torts § 920; see Dakota Gardens Apartment Investors “B” v. Pudwill (1977) 75 Cal.App.3d 346, 352, 354 , citing the text [defendant cannot diminish amount of damages by paying debt of plaintiff without plaintiff’s consent; mitigation will be denied where it is inequitable]; 22 Am.Jur.2d (2013 ed.). [Citations.])” (6 Witkin, Summary of Cal.

2021(Maben v. Rankin (1961) 55 Cal.2d 139, 144 [‘In determining the damages suffered as a result of a tortious act, consideration may be given, where equitable, to the value of any special benefit conferred by that act to the interest which was harmed’]; Rest.2d, Torts § 920; see Dakota Gardens Apartment Investors “B” v. Pudwill (1977) 75 Cal.App.3d 346, 352, 354 , citing the text [defendant cannot diminish amount of damages by paying debt of plaintiff without plaintiff’s consent; mitigation will be denied where it is inequitable]; 22 Am.Jur.2d (2013 ed.). [Citations.])” (6 Witkin, Summary of Cal.

2021(Maben v. Rankin (1961) 55 Cal.2d 139, 144 [‘In determining the damages suffered as a result of a tortious act, consideration may be given, where equitable, to the value of any special benefit conferred by that act to the interest which was harmed’]; Rest.2d, Torts § 920; see Dakota Gardens Apartment Investors “B” v. Pudwill (1977) 75 Cal.App.3d 346, 352, 354 , citing the text [defendant cannot diminish amount of damages by paying debt of plaintiff without plaintiff’s consent; mitigation will be denied where it is inequitable]; 22 Am.Jur.2d (2013 ed.). [Citations.])” (6 Witkin, Summary of Cal.

2021(Maben v. Rankin (1961) 55 Cal.2d 139, 144 [‘In determining the damages suffered as a result of a tortious act, consideration may be given, where equitable, to the value of any special benefit conferred by that act to the interest which was harmed’]; Rest.2d, Torts § 920; see Dakota Gardens Apartment Investors “B” v. Pudwill (1977) 75 Cal.App.3d 346, 352, 354 , citing the text [defendant cannot diminish amount of damages by paying debt of plaintiff without plaintiff’s consent; mitigation will be denied where it is inequitable]; 22 Am.Jur.2d (2013 ed.). [Citations.])” (6 Witkin, Summary of Cal.

2021The following are illustrative: Maben v. Rankin (1961) 55 Cal.2d 139 , 144: “[C]onsideration may be given, where equitable, to the value of any special benefit conferred by that act to the interest which was harmed.” Turpin v. Sortini (1982) 31 Cal.3d 220 , 236: “ ‘the value of the benefit conferred is considered in mitigation of damages, to the extent that this is equitable.’ ” Heckert v. MacDonald (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 832 , 839: “ ‘the value of the benefit conferred is considered in mitigation of damages, to the extent that this is equitable.’ ” Heckert v. MacDonald, supra, 208 Cal.App.3d 8

2021The following are illustrative: Maben v. Rankin (1961) 55 Cal.2d 139 , 144: “[C]onsideration may be given, where equitable, to the value of any special benefit conferred by that act to the interest which was harmed.” Turpin v. Sortini (1982) 31 Cal.3d 220 , 236: “ ‘the value of the benefit conferred is considered in mitigation of damages, to the extent that this is equitable.’ ” Heckert v. MacDonald (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 832 , 839: “ ‘the value of the benefit conferred is considered in mitigation of damages, to the extent that this is equitable.’ ” Heckert v. MacDonald, supra, 208 Cal.App.3d 8

2021(Maben v. Rankin (1961) 55 Cal.2d 139, 144 [‘In determining the damages suffered as a result of a tortious act, consideration may be given, where equitable, to the value of any special benefit conferred by that act to the interest which was harmed’]; Rest.2d, Torts § 920; see Dakota Gardens Apartment Investors “B” v. Pudwill (1977) 75 Cal.App.3d 346, 352, 354 , citing the text [defendant cannot diminish amount of damages by paying debt of plaintiff without plaintiff’s consent; mitigation will be denied where it is inequitable]; 22 Am.Jur.2d (2013 ed.). [Citations.])” (6 Witkin, Summary of Cal.

2021(Maben v. Rankin (1961) 55 Cal.2d 139, 144 [‘In determining the damages suffered as a result of a tortious act, consideration may be given, where equitable, to the value of any special benefit conferred by that act to the interest which was harmed’]; Rest.2d, Torts § 920; see Dakota Gardens Apartment Investors “B” v. Pudwill (1977) 75 Cal.App.3d 346, 352, 354 , citing the text [defendant cannot diminish amount of damages by paying debt of plaintiff without plaintiff’s consent; mitigation will be denied where it is inequitable]; 22 Am.Jur.2d (2013 ed.). [Citations.])” (6 Witkin, Summary of Cal.

2010“Because only special benefits are assessable, and public improvements often provide both general benefits to the community and special benefits to a particular property, the assessing agency must first ‘separate the general benefits from the special benefits conferred on a parcel’ and impose the assessment only for the special benefits.” (Silicon Valley, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 443 .) The special benefit and proportionality requirements are perhaps best understood as being interrelated, not separate, requirements.

2009(Id. at p. 454.) As a consequence, the court concluded the assessment failed to satisfy the special benefit requirement of article XIII D. ( 44 Cal.4th at p. 456 .) The Supplemental District bears little relation to the defective assessment district in Silicon Valley .

1997Com’n, etc. v. Tate (Mo. 1980) 592 S.W.2d 777, 778-780 ; Gradison v. State (1973) 260 Ind. 688, 695-696 [ 300 N.E.2d 67 ]; New Jersey Turnpike Auth. v. Herrontown Woods (1976) 145 N.J.Super. 279, 285-286 [ 367 A.2d 893 ]; State v. Botluck (1964) 57 Del. 362, 371 [ 200 A.2d 424, 428 ].) In an attempt to demonstrate that the special benefit rule breeds inconsistency, the majority asserts that the rule’s application in Pierpont Inn, Inc. v. State of California, supra, 70 Cal.2d 282 , conflicts with its application in City of Hayward v. Unger, supra, 194 Cal.App.2d 516 , and Los Angeles v. Marbleh

1997Super. 279, 285-286 [ 367 A.2d 893 ]; State v. Botluck (1964) 57 Del. 362, 371 [ 200 A.2d 424, 428 ].) In an attempt to demonstrate that the special benefit rule breeds inconsistency, the majority asserts that the rule's application in Pierpont Inn, Inc. v. State of California, supra, 70 Cal.2d 282 , conflicts with its application in City of Hayward v. Unger, supra, 194 Cal. App.2d 516 , and Los Angeles v. Marblehead Land Co., supra, 95 Cal. App. 602 .

1997Com’n, etc. v. Tate (Mo. 1980) 592 S.W.2d 777, 778-780 ; Gradison v. State (1973) 260 Ind. 688, 695-696 [ 300 N.E.2d 67 ]; New Jersey Turnpike Auth. v. Herrontown Woods (1976) 145 N.J.Super. 279, 285-286 [ 367 A.2d 893 ]; State v. Botluck (1964) 57 Del. 362, 371 [ 200 A.2d 424, 428 ].) In an attempt to demonstrate that the special benefit rule breeds inconsistency, the majority asserts that the rule’s application in Pierpont Inn, Inc. v. State of California, supra, 70 Cal.2d 282 , conflicts with its application in City of Hayward v. Unger, supra, 194 Cal.App.2d 516 , and Los Angeles v. Marbleh

1997Super. 279, 285-286 [ 367 A.2d 893 ]; State v. Botluck (1964) 57 Del. 362, 371 [ 200 A.2d 424, 428 ].) In an attempt to demonstrate that the special benefit rule breeds inconsistency, the majority asserts that the rule's application in Pierpont Inn, Inc. v. State of California, supra, 70 Cal.2d 282 , conflicts with its application in City of Hayward v. Unger, supra, 194 Cal. App.2d 516 , and Los Angeles v. Marblehead Land Co., supra, 95 Cal. App. 602 .

1997Com’n, etc. v. Tate (Mo. 1980) 592 S.W.2d 777, 778-780 ; Gradison v. State (1973) 260 Ind. 688, 695-696 [ 300 N.E.2d 67 ]; New Jersey Turnpike Auth. v. Herrontown Woods (1976) 145 N.J.Super. 279, 285-286 [ 367 A.2d 893 ]; State v. Botluck (1964) 57 Del. 362, 371 [ 200 A.2d 424, 428 ].) In an attempt to demonstrate that the special benefit rule breeds inconsistency, the majority asserts that the rule’s application in Pierpont Inn, Inc. v. State of California, supra, 70 Cal.2d 282 , conflicts with its application in City of Hayward v. Unger, supra, 194 Cal.App.2d 516 , and Los Angeles v. Marbleh

1997Super. 279, 285-286 [ 367 A.2d 893 ]; State v. Botluck (1964) 57 Del. 362, 371 [ 200 A.2d 424, 428 ].) In an attempt to demonstrate that the special benefit rule breeds inconsistency, the majority asserts that the rule's application in Pierpont Inn, Inc. v. State of California, supra, 70 Cal.2d 282 , conflicts with its application in City of Hayward v. Unger, supra, 194 Cal. App.2d 516 , and Los Angeles v. Marblehead Land Co., supra, 95 Cal. App. 602 .

2017(See Sinclair Paint , 15 Cal.4th at p. 874 , 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 447 , 937 P.2d 1350 [contrasting taxes from charges imposed in return for a special benefit or privilege]; 9 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (10th ed. 2005) Taxation, § 1, p. 25 ["in taxation, ... no compensation is given to the taxpayer except by way of governmental protection and other general benefits"].) Plaintiffs observe, however, that SCE customers pay the surcharge, but SCE receives the franchise rights; therefore, they contend, the ratepayers do not receive any value in exchange for their *875 payment of the **223 charge.

2017(See Sinclair Paint , 15 Cal.4th at p. 874 , 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 447 , 937 P.2d 1350 [contrasting taxes from charges imposed in return for a special benefit or privilege]; 9 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (10th ed. 2005) Taxation, § 1, p. 25 ["in taxation, ... no compensation is given to the taxpayer except by way of governmental protection and other general benefits"].) Plaintiffs observe, however, that SCE customers pay the surcharge, but SCE receives the franchise rights; therefore, they contend, the ratepayers do not receive any value in exchange for their *875 payment of the **223 charge.

1997Com’n, etc. v. Tate (Mo. 1980) 592 S.W.2d 777, 778-780 ; Gradison v. State (1973) 260 Ind. 688, 695-696 [ 300 N.E.2d 67 ]; New Jersey Turnpike Auth. v. Herrontown Woods (1976) 145 N.J.Super. 279, 285-286 [ 367 A.2d 893 ]; State v. Botluck (1964) 57 Del. 362, 371 [ 200 A.2d 424, 428 ].) In an attempt to demonstrate that the special benefit rule breeds inconsistency, the majority asserts that the rule’s application in Pierpont Inn, Inc. v. State of California, supra, 70 Cal.2d 282 , conflicts with its application in City of Hayward v. Unger, supra, 194 Cal.App.2d 516 , and Los Angeles v. Marbleh

1991The special benefit rule articulated in Sexton v. Brooks, supra, 39 Cal.2d 153 , does not control this case.

1975(See Roberts v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 7 Cal.2d 477, 491 .) The fact that the traffic problems are seen as caused, not by the rain, but by the property from which the rainwaters drain, is not a basis for levying a special assessment according to the special benefit rule.